Mongabay Environmental News » Topics » Elephantshttp://www.mongabay.com
Mongabay is the world’s most popular rainforest information site and a well-known source of environmental news reporting and analysis.Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:46:17 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.1U.S. to strengthen restrictions elephant ivoryhttp://news.mongabay.com/2015/07/u-s-to-strengthen-restrictions-elephant-ivory/
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/07/u-s-to-strengthen-restrictions-elephant-ivory/#commentsSat, 25 Jul 2015 00:59:41 +0000http://news.mongabay.com/In response to growing concerns about elephant poaching, President Obama today announced a new push to limit the ivory trade in the United States.
In a joint press conference held with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, Obama said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a new regulation that "bans the sale of virtually all ivory across state lines." The move follows a near-complete ban on the commercial ivory trade enacted by the administration last year.
The new rule, which will be published Wednesday for a 60-day public comment period, would make it harder for ivory traffickers to use loopholes sell product, according to Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe.
[caption width="780" align="alignnone"] Baby African elephant in South Africa. Photo by Rhett A. Butler[/caption]
“By tightening domestic controls on trade in elephant ivory and allowing only very narrow exceptions, we will close existing avenues that are exploited by traffickers and address ivory trade that poses a threat to elephants in the wild,” Ashe said in a statement. “Federal law enforcement agents will have clearer lines by which to demarcate legal from illegal trade.”
The announcement was immediately welcomed by conservation groups.
"The United States has a global obligation to help stop wildlife trafficking," said WCS President and CEO Cristián Samper in a statement. “We applaud President Obama’s remarks emphasizing the need for a ban on ivory sales in the United States. While some states such as New York and New Jersey have recently enacted laws banning ivory sales, we are delighted that the President is calling for a national ban – which will help prevent the illegal killing of elephants and the trafficking in their ivory."
“We’re thrilled the Obama administration has taken this important step to reduce the domestic trade in ivory,” added Tara Easter, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The United States has one of the largest markets for ivory in the world and reducing demand here will go a long way toward saving elephants in Africa.”
[caption width="780" align="alignnone"] Young elephant in South Africa. Photo by Rhett A. Butler[/caption]
Scientists estimate that more than 100,000 African elephants were killed for their ivory by poachers between 2010 and 2012. Populations in some countries, like Tanzania, have plunged as a result.
The government of the world's largest market for ivory — China — recently announced it would ban the ivory trade at an unspecified date.]]>http://news.mongabay.com/2015/07/u-s-to-strengthen-restrictions-elephant-ivory/feed/0Using DNA evidence to pinpoint poaching zoneshttp://wildtech.mongabay.com/2015/06/using-dna-evidence-to-pinpoint-poaching-zones/
http://wildtech.mongabay.com/2015/06/using-dna-evidence-to-pinpoint-poaching-zones/#commentsWed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000http://news.mongabaydev.co.uk/2015/06/using-dna-evidence-to-pinpoint-poaching-zonesScience showed that most of the ivory being trafficked today comes from two areas in Africa: savanna elephant ivory from southeast Tanzania in East Africa and forest elephant ivory from the meeting point of Gabon, the Republic of Congo, Cameroon, and Central African Republic.
]]>Most African elephant ivory is from a very few places

A study published last week in Science showed that most of the ivory being trafficked today comes from two areas in Africa: savanna elephant ivory from southeast Tanzania in East Africa and forest elephant ivory from the meeting point of Gabon, the Republic of Congo, Cameroon, and Central African Republic.

While the poaching of elephants for their tusks happens all across their ranges in Africa and Asia, nearly 70% of seized ivory by weight during the past decade came from the elephants from these two areas.

By identifying these major poaching hotspots, lead author Dr. Sam Wasser and colleagues hope to guide law enforcement to the most targeted areas and thus help stop the poaching.

Central African and East African elephant poaching hotspots, estimated from DNA of large ivory seizures made between 1996-2014.

To use DNA to determine origin, the researchers needed samples of viable DNA – that is, intact enough to allow analysis of the genetic composition (or genotype) – both for the reference database and the ivory samples from the seizures. Wasser and colleagues have been able to extract sufficient DNA from the small skin, hair, feces, and ivory samples, all collected using non-invasive techniques.

With viable DNA in hand, the researchers used statistics to infer, from the genetic data, the origin of each new sample, as elephants that live near and are related to one another will have more similar genotypes than those living far away. Populations that are isolated will start to show distinct genetic variation over time.

Specifically, they compared the DNA in the poached ivory samples of unknown origin to the samples in the reference database statistically, estimating the ivory’s geographic origin through the frequencies of the gene variants (alleles) at 16 specific locations (loci) on microsatellite DNA. Wasser estimates that ~25 reference samples, each from a separate family group, are needed to distinguish the allele frequencies from a given reserve or landscape.

A male elephant in Tanzania’s Serengeti ecosystem

What did they find?

The analyses could distinguish savanna elephants and forest elephants, as well as more isolated populations within each of these species/sub-species, based on the animals’ DNA.

The findings suggest that the majority of ivory confiscated from large shipments since 2006 come from two main reserve complexes in Africa: southeastern Tanzania, but including northern Mozambique and the intersection of Gabon, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, and Central African Republic. The savanna elephant poaching hotspot in Tanzania shifted northwest over the decade toward Tanzania’s second largest elephant population in the Ruaha/Rungwa ecosystem, while forest elephant poaching remain relatively consistent over that same period.

The DNA data also show that poached ivory is shipped out of Africa from countries other than where the elephants were killed.

Forest elephant ivory seized between 2006 and 2014 was assigned mainly to the TriDom region of NE Gabon, NW Republic of Congo, and SE Cameroon, plus Dzanga-Sanga Reserve in Central African Republic. The first map shows the reference sample locations (green crosses) and the box contains the area shown in all subsequent maps. The blue circles represent locations assigned to poached ivory samples. Country names are where the ivory was seized. Source: Wasser et al (2015) Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa2457. Click to enlarge.

Savanna elephant ivory seized between 2006 and 2014 was assigned mainly to southeastern Tanzania. The first map shows the reference sample locations (orange crosses) and the box contains the area shown in all subsequent maps. The blue circles represent locations assigned to poached ivory samples. Country names are where the ivory was seized. Source: Wasser et al (2015) Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa2457. Click to enlarge.

How can these results be used?

Such forensic data can help catch criminals in the act of trafficking wildlife or plant products illegally. More generally, they can improve enforcement of international law by recognizing countries with more severe trafficking problems.

Researchers can use the information to begin to infer the degree and time of isolation of populations and relative similarity among them. An earlier study of African elephant DNA showed that savanna elephants are significantly less genetically diverse than forest elephants, which suggests that perhaps forest elephant populations are more isolated from one another (a potential conservation problem), or perhaps they evolved from a more diverse source population and have remained isolated naturally.

Most urgently, wildlife and park agency directors can strategically focus ranger patrol effort and resources to areas with more intensive poaching problems. If new seizures continue to be provided for DNA analysis on a timely basis, these methods can track any shifts to other areas that might result from law enforcement pressure on the current hotspots.

Forest elephant in Gabon. Photo by Rhett A. Butler.

For example, the primary source for forest elephant ivory abruptly shifted around 2006 from eastern Democratic Republic of Congo to the current intersection of Gabon-Cameroon-Republic of Congo. Similarly, the main savanna elephant ivory source shifted from Zambia to SE Tanzania between 2006-2007 and since 2011 moved north toward central Tanzania, as supply (read: elephant populations) has dwindled: Niassa National Reserve in northern Mozambique has continued to lose thousands of elephants each year to poaching.

The findings should be an urgent call for enhanced patrolling and resources dedicated to the identified hotspots. The research team hopes their work will lead to tougher laws and more strategic and coordinated international enforcement in these targeted areas to halt the slaughter of elephants for ivory.

}}]]>http://wildtech.mongabay.com/2015/06/using-dna-evidence-to-pinpoint-poaching-zones/feed/0On the fence about wildlife fencing: new paper outlines research needed to resolve debatehttp://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/on-the-fence-about-wildlife-fencing-new-paper-outlines-research-needed-to-resolve-debate/
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/on-the-fence-about-wildlife-fencing-new-paper-outlines-research-needed-to-resolve-debate/#commentsWed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000http://news.mongabaydev.co.uk/2015/06/on-the-fence-about-wildlife-fencing-new-paper-outlines-research-needed-to-resolve-debateFencing is used to protect wildlife against poaching and human encroachment, and also to protect people and livestock from wildlife. As a conservation strategy, it has proponents as well as detractors. A recent paper by a team of 45 international researchers in the Journal of Applied Ecology questions the wisdom of erecting wildlife fencing in dryland ecosystems. It also seeks to ease decision-making on fencing initiatives by setting a research agenda to answer open questions that will help resolve the debate.

In Africa, wildlife fencing expanded rapidly during the 1960s and 1970s as a solution to human-wildlife conflicts. After a lull, the continent is once again witnessing a resurgence of fence building. Rwanda recently put up a 75-mile-long fence around Akagera National Park at a cost of $2.5 million. Uganda plans to fence all its parks, and Malawi may, too.

A fence in the Gourma region in Mali. Its purpose is unknown. Photo by Jake Wall.

But fences have come under fire for restricting animal movement, particularly in drylands, where enormous animal migrations occur as an adaptation to extreme and variable conditions and, the paper's authors write, "mobility is essential for both wildlife and people." Climate change is expected to exacerbate the situation.

"Large-scale fencing can disrupt migration pathways and reduce access to key areas within drylands, such as seasonal foraging areas," said lead author Sarah Durant, an ecologist at the Zoological Society of London, in a press release announcing the paper. "This can lead to severe reductions in migratory wildlife populations and may prompt wider impacts on non-migratory species."

Fences have been blamed for the deaths of tens of thousands of migratory animals seeking water and food in times of drought, including wildebeests, giraffes, and various species of antelope. As a result, the intergovernmental Southern African Development Community and several conservation groups across Africa now advocate the widespread removal of fencing to restore wildlife populations that no longer thrive in small reserves.

The Okavango veterinary fence in Botswana. Photo by Mark Johnstad.

Yet scientific opinion on fencing appears to be divided. The paper points to a recent debate over the value of fencing for conservation of African lions (Panthera leo). One 2013 analysis of fenced and unfenced lion populations concluded that fencing was a cost-effective conservation strategy for lions and recommended it; another study examined the same populations and found the reverse, that more lions could be conserved per dollar spent in unfenced areas, without any of the ecological repercussions of fencing.

The lion research notwithstanding, the paper points to limited evidence on the success of fencing in drylands. "Scientific understanding of the costs and benefits of fences is still in its infancy…and is currently inadequate to support sound policymaking," the authors write.

The researchers point out that keeping elephants fenced in a reserve keeps them from key areas with foraging and water resources that may be important for survival during extreme climatic events. Photo by: Rhett Butler.

To fill the void, and ultimately to help settle the debate about fencing, the authors propose a research agenda covering six areas where, they write, "incomplete or poor information hinders the wise use of fencing": monetary costs, permeability of fencing to wildlife, design of reserves to be fenced, effects on wildlife mobility, broader ecological effects, and effects on nearby human communities.

The authors call for the development of guidelines to help conservationists better evaluate whether the installation of large-scale fences would be appropriate in a given area. They propose that the United Nations Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) would be an ideal body to lead the development of such guidelines on the basis of its expertise in management of fences and conservation of arid areas. In response, the CMS's Scientific Council proposed forming a working group to take up the issue, according to the press release.

The cheetah is another species that could be negatively impacted by fencing. Photo by: Rhett Butler.

Public awareness of the global elephant ivory poaching crisis got a high profile boost today with the crush of 2,000 pounds (907 kg) of confiscated ivory in New York City's Times Square.

The event was coordinated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), state officials, and a coalition of conservation groups to focus attention on the plight of elephants, which are being slaughtered en masse across the forests and savannas of Africa and Asia to supply the ivory business.

“Today’s ivory crush serves as a stark reminder to the rest of the world that the United States will not tolerate wildlife crimes, especially against iconic and endangered animals,” said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. “The message is loud and clear: This Administration will stop the poachers in their tracks, stop the profits and work with our international partners to protect our global natural heritage.”

The crush comes a year-and-a-half after FWS destroyed six tons of contraband ivory. Since then, a number of countries have held similar events to pulverize illegal ivory so it won't go back into the market.

Yet elephant poaching remains at historically high levels, claiming 22,000-35,000 wild elephants a year. A study published today in Science showed that most of the elephant ivory coming into the market is from two areas: Tanzania and Mozambique in East Africa and Gabon, the Republic of Congo and Cameroon in West and Central Africa.

According, conservationists have stepped up campaigns targeting the demand side of the market. John Calvelli, Executive Vice President of WCS, which has been coordinating a campaign to stop elephant poaching, says that while crush only involves contraband ivory, it sends an important signal to the broader market.

“With the destruction today of more than one ton of confiscated ivory in the city that until quite recently hosted the largest ivory market in the United States, we send an important signal to the nation, as well as to other nations with active ivory markets, and to global wildlife trafficking networks that when it comes to ivory, the United States is closing for business. And not a moment too soon," said Calvelli. “What we know is that demand for ivory is a key driver of elephant poaching. By destroying confiscated ivory, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service affirms the stated goal of the Obama Administration to bring the domestic ivory trade in the United States – one of the world’s largest markets -- to an end."

Confiscated illegal ivory. Photo Credit: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Photo Credit: Kelsey Williams/FWS

On the morning of June 19, 2015, in Times Square, New York City, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with wildlife and conservation partners, hosted its second ivory crush event. One ton of ivory seized during an undercover operation, plus other ivory from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums was crushed. Photo Credit: Kelsey Williams/FWS

Iain Douglas-Hamilton, CEO of Save the Elephants, agreed.

"The wave of ivory destructions around the world reflects the global awareness that the ivory trade must end."

But ending the ivory trade won't happen unless the world's largest consumer — China — joins the effort. Encouragingly, last month China said it would start to take steps to control the trade, a move that was immediately welcomed by conservation groups.

China's timeline for implementing its pledge is still unspecified, but that hasn't slowed conservationists who are pushing other governments and organizations to work together via programs like the Elephant Protection Initiative (EPI), a policy framework that provides funding to elephant range countries to close domestic ivory markets, destroy ivory stockpiles, and support an international ban on the ivory trade.

"Signing on to the EPI is an essential important long-term step to truly end the ivory trade and ensure that elephants thrive in the wild," said Calvelli. "It has been extremely encouraging to see the groundswell of support as more and more partners sign on to the EPI, but we need even more participation to support the African range countries in their call to protect elephants, and to make this a global movement to save elephants for future generations."

Conservation groups are also working at a sub-national level, encouraging states and cities to ban all ivory sales. For example, last year New York and New Jersey banned the trade. California, Oregon, and Florida are among the states now weighing similar measures.

]]>http://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/elephant-poaching-gets-center-stage-in-nyc-ivory-crush/feed/0Real-time monitoring: How timely location data can keep wildlife out of danger zoneshttp://wildtech.mongabay.com/2015/06/real-time-monitoring-how-timely-location-data-can-keep-wildlife-out-of-danger-zones/
http://wildtech.mongabay.com/2015/06/real-time-monitoring-how-timely-location-data-can-keep-wildlife-out-of-danger-zones/#commentsThu, 18 Jun 2015 17:15:00 +0000http://news.mongabaydev.co.uk/2015/06/real-time-monitoring-how-timely-location-data-can-keep-wildlife-out-of-danger-zonesDo you know where your study animals are? How fast have they travelled over the past day or week? How far are they from a river, or from a highway?
Previously, wildlife biologists had to estimate the locations of their study subjects, using either triangulation from two or more receiver locations or identifiable landscape features on aerial photos or hand-drawn maps. With the advent of GPS technology, they can pinpoint the location of their subject to within a few meters, at any given time, with the help of GPS (Global Positioning System) animal tracking tags. When worn by an animal, a GPS-based tag can tell us where the individual is in the landscape and how he or she uses the landscape over time, without our having to follow them. However, only very recently has the technology advanced to allow researchers to monitor animals in real time.
Using GPS-based information, wildlife researchers and managers can map species’ distributions, identify individuals’ home ranges and migration patterns, and, using computer algorithms based on previous behavior, recognize “typical"movement patterns. With real-time access to this data, when the animal moves in an “abnormal"pattern, according to the algorithms, the information can aid in detecting possible injuries and facilitate quick responses to illegal poaching events.
A GPS Primer
A GPS-based tracking system involves a receiver (for wildlife, usually a collar placed on the study animal) that picks up signals from several of the GPS satellites that continually orbit the Earth. It then calculates the unit’s location on the globe by triangulating the position of three or more of these satellites. The more spread out the satellites, the more precisely the location will be estimated.
The GPS-based device stores the positional data until they are retrieved by either recapturing the animal wearing the collar or downloading the GPS data remotely (i.e. wirelessly). Data can be remotely received either via a portable receiver (typically hand-held), or transmitted to a base station through a ground-based GSM (Global System for Mobile communications) network, via SMS or data links, or through a satellite-based network, such as Iridium or Inmarsat (Figure 1).
A researcher can also program some GPS-based tags to send positional data back to him or her at specified intervals in time, which has typically varied from hourly to daily or weekly, depending on battery life constraints. (** Your handheld GPS provides you with continuous updates of your location because it stays on continuously, as you can recharge it every day. An animal tracking tag stays on the animal for months, so to prolong battery life, it takes the current point location and turns off immediately.)
Figure 1. Remote data transfers for GPS-based tracking systems use a GSM link, a satellite-based link, or a handheld terminal. (Image compilation: Nadia de Souza)Benefits of Real-Time Monitoring
While GPS locational data updates every second, GPS-based tracking devices currently lack the battery power to receive and transmit these data continuously. Nevertheless, real-time monitoring (RTM) enables the researcher to program the tag to transmit data immediately if the animal moves in a particular way.
In a paper published in 2014, researchers Jake Wall, George Wittemyer, Brian Klinkenberg and Iain Douglas-Hamilton describe the novel opportunities that real-time monitoring offers for wildlife conservation and research. From their experience with real-time monitoring (RTM) of 94 African elephants in ecosystems in Kenya and South Africa (Figure 2), the researchers suggest that this GPS tracking technology is especially applicable for protecting species that are either under immediate risk of hunting or are likely to interact frequently with people.
Elephant fitted with RTM-enabled GPS collar (photo credit G. Wittemyer)
The researchers highlight two key ways that real-time data can facilitate wildlife management and ecological research:

keeping track of animals’ locations in relation to stationary geographical features (such as roads and fences) and dynamic features (such as livestock herds), which is called positional analyses;

analyzing the movement and spatial behavior of animals across a landscape, which is called movement and behavioral analyses.

Positional analyses
Real-time data on the position of tagged animals in relation to dangerous features in the landscape allow wildlife managers to respond rapidly and proactively to evolving situations, providing the opportunity to intervene prior to any incidents and remove these individuals from danger zones. For this study, the author team designed sophisticated software algorithms that analyze incoming movement data. The algorithms can determine the animal’s proximity to pre-determined points or areas of interest and send immediate alerts to managers, normally via SMS or e-mail, when animals move too close to high-risk features or enter a dangerous area. These virtual boundaries are popularly termed “geofences". Real-time location information is especially important for animals prone to frequent interactions with people, such as elephants, or where contact between wildlife and livestock is of interest due to potential disease transmission between the two.
Figure 3. Not just elephants: a researcher from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences deploying a GPS/GSM RTM-enabled collar on a moose in northern Sweden. Photo credit: E. Andersson.
Elephants often raid local farms, causing sporadic but substantial damage to crops and provoking sometimes-deadly responses from farmers. In the paper, Wall and his colleagues report on the success of RTM to alleviate this conflict between humans and elephants in Kenya. The researchers used position data from RTM-equipped GPS collars on target elephants to alert communities and wildlife managers when the animals moved close to farms. The alerts gave communities enough warning time to divert the elephants away from the crops and avoid potentially fatal confrontations between elephants and farmers.
Movement-behavior analyses
By providing researchers and managers with regular animal locations and movement patterns, GPS data can help them identify a "normal" range of movement rates, as well as long-term and current hotspots of target animal activity. Such data also help park mangers to ensure that patrols are set up in the most effective means to protect these animals against poaching.
RTM-enabled tags can be programmed to recognize and alert managers of immobility and unusual changes in movement rates of collared animals through algorithms designed to detect deviations (much faster or slower) from "normal" behavioral states.
Wildlife managers are alerted to unnatural variations in movements or immobility and can immediately deploy patrols to investigate the possibility of an injury, illness or a poaching event. Current location data give wildlife managers more time to intervene appropriately and a better chance of saving the animal or catching poachers at the scene of the crime.
Newly developed RTM implant units are now starting to be used to help detect poaching events in rhinos (Figure 3). These units, implanted in animals’ horns, monitor rhino behavior via three-dimensional accelerometers, and abnormal behavior will trigger instantaneous alarms send out to wildlife rangers.
Figure 4. Implanting an RTM-enabled chip into a rhino's horn (photo credit: Savannah Tracking)
RTM technologies are still constrained by cost, with each device costing between US$1,700-6,000. The cost is particularly challenging where collars are vulnerable to damage from rough treatment by their hosts. When study animals roam out of cellular network coverage areas, data transfer via GPS/GSM is restricted. Moreover, not all researchers can use this technology: GPS-based communication requires lots of power (i.e. bigger batteries) to transmit data in real-time, which adds substantially to the weight of the tag. The necessary trade-off between weight and the duration of operation essentially means that tags for smaller animals have a low operational lifespan.
Nevertheless, as technology continues to advance rapidly, costs are likely to decrease, holes in cellular coverage are likely to be plugged, and batteries should become cheaper, more powerful, and lighter. Furthermore, advances in using re-chargeable units via either solar- or motion-based charging may allow even small tags to theoretically last forever (Figure 4).
Figure 5. A prototype solar-powered animal tracking tag (photo credit: Savannah Tracking)
These advances will expand the current capacity of RTM for conservation and research to additional species, uses, and locations. Wall and his colleagues suggest that in the not-too distant future, it may be possible to incorporate measures of internal physiological variables (such as heartbeat and body temperature) and environmental variables (such as external temperature) that co-occur with movement data. Integrating these additional measures with location data will facilitate understanding of complex spatial-behavioral patterns and identifying moments of severe stress experienced by tagged animals -- valuable data that can improve management practices, prevent poaching, and reduce conflict between people and wildlife.
Acknowledgements: We thank Jake and Wall and Henrik Rasmussen for their helpful editorial comments and suggestions.
]]>http://wildtech.mongabay.com/2015/06/real-time-monitoring-how-timely-location-data-can-keep-wildlife-out-of-danger-zones/feed/0What do China, Kenya and India have in common? Wildlife traffickinghttp://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/what-do-china-kenya-and-india-have-in-common-wildlife-trafficking/
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/what-do-china-kenya-and-india-have-in-common-wildlife-trafficking/#commentsWed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000http://news.mongabaydev.co.uk/2015/06/what-do-china-kenya-and-india-have-in-common-wildlife-traffickingA white rhino in Kruger National Park in South Africa. Photo by: Rhett A. Butler.

When it comes to trafficking rhino, elephant, and tiger parts the biggest players are China, Kenya, India, Vietnam, South Africa and Thailand, according to a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Examining news media reports aggregated by HealthMap: Wildlife Trade, researchers were able to pinpoint the most important countries (called 'nodes') for exporting, moving and importing illegal wildlife parts worldwide.

"Our aim was not to point fingers but to identify key players in the trade," said lead author Nikkita Patel, who conducted the research as a part of her dissertation with the University of Pennsylvania.

China proved the biggest 'node' for both rhino and tiger trafficking, while Kenya was the largest node in elephant trafficking--though China was second. In all, the paper identifies the six or seven most important nodes for each species (see list below).

"[If] you’re going to war against the wildlife trade and you need to have a good [idea] of where the players are and where are the nodes,” Sarah Olson, the associate director of wildlife epidemiology with the Wildlife Conservation Society, told the Washington Post. Olson, who was not affiliated with the study, praised its use of data to aid those combatting the illegal trade.

Captive tiger. There are more captive tigers in the world than wild ones. Photo by: Rhett A. Butler.

"Moving forward, we can track how these nodes change in time, we can improve the data we put into it and we can monitor the impact of different interventions."

Patel said she believes her study "can inform strategic decision-making" but that ongoing research will be required to stay ahead of the curve.

"Criminals are quite savvy and trade routes will evolve in order to evade enforcement. Real-time analyses will be important in order to stay on top of current trade trends rather than relying on static, cross-sectional analyses based on one time period."

To come up with their analysis, Patel and her team examined several hundred confiscated shipments from August 2010 to December 2013, including 232 shipments of elephants, 165 of rhinos and 108 of tigers.

But Jacob Phelps with the Center for International Forestry Research criticized the study for focusing on charismatic animals that already reap most of the media attention and conservation efforts devoted to wildlife trafficking.

"Tigers, rhinos and elephants are by no means the most widely traded of taxa. It's things like seahorses, plants, pangolins, ornamental birds, corals for fish tanks, endangered fish for restaurants--these are the things that represent the bulk of illegal wildlife trade,” he told Wired. "We see a lot more reporting on tigers rather than turtle eggs or softshell turtles being served at a restaurant. We need to be aware that bias carries through."

But Patel said they examined the trade around these three animals, because that where the data was strongest.

Young elephant in South Africa. Photo by: Rhett A. Butler.

"It will be interesting to further this work for other animals as the system continues to accumulate data," she noted.

The paper also looked at where educational campaigns could make the most difference in disrupting the illegal wildlife trade.

"Again, China, Vietnam, Thailand, and India are important countries for educational programs," the researchers write. "It is interesting to note that almost all key intermediary nodes, key import nodes, key nodes for network disruption, and key nodes for dissemination of information
included China as one of its targets. With its increasing global economic importance, China has to be a major focus for wildlife trade reduction programs."

]]>http://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/what-do-china-kenya-and-india-have-in-common-wildlife-trafficking/feed/0The ivory trade and the war on wildlife (rangers) [commentary]http://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/the-ivory-trade-and-the-war-on-wildlife-rangers-commentary/
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/the-ivory-trade-and-the-war-on-wildlife-rangers-commentary/#commentsSat, 13 Jun 2015 02:19:00 +0000http://news.mongabaydev.co.uk/2015/06/the-ivory-trade-and-the-war-on-wildlife-rangers-commentary/In this commentary, Fred Bercovitch, wildlife conservation biologist at Kyoto University, confronts the conservation community with an unconventional approach to stopping the ivory trade and illegal elephant killing. The views expressed are his own.

Orphaned elephants in Kenya.

"Nothing creates a greater surprise among the negroes [sic] on the sea-coast than the eagerness displayed by the European traders to procure elephants’ teeth" wrote Mungo Park in Travels in the Interior of Africa (1799). Ivory, gold, and slaves were the dominant export from West Africa when Park explored the region. In his book, Park describes how elephants were tracked and killed by groups of four or five local hunters. After killing an elephant, they would use their hatchets to chop out the tusks, skin the creature, and eat the meat. The tusks would be brought to merchants to take to the coast. Park wrote that the local people "…cannot, they say, easily persuade themselves that ships would be built and voyages undertaken to procure an article which had no value other than furnishing handles to knives, etc., when pieces of wood would answer the purpose equally well." Just like the ‘local people’ in his day, I cannot easily persuade myself that people will kill the world’s heaviest terrestrial mammal simply to extract two incisor teeth. Tusks were used not only for knife handles; the gaining popularity of billiards took a toll on elephants. In the 19th Century about 12,000 elephants were killed in Africa every year so that their tusks could be exported to Britain to make billiard balls. Each tooth produced about three to five billiard balls.

The slaughter of elephants for knife handles and billiard balls had, and still has, a pernicious and dastardly impact on people protecting wildlife. The illegal killing of animals has been with us for as long as animals have been protected in national parks and the murder of their protectors has proceeded alongside. Pelican Island Game Warden Guy Bradley was assassinated on 8 July 1905, the first United States wildlife protection officer killed in the line of duty. It was cold-blooded murder. Bradley had rowed his small boat to Oyster Keys, where he disembarked and walked over to a group of men who had been shooting at double-crested cormorants, dive-bombing water birds who pick off fish after they penetrate the water’s surface. In the course of attempting to arrest the men, Bradley was shot point-blank in the chest. The murder of wildlife rangers in the line of duty has continued to this day. On 11 November 2010, Pennsylvania Wildlife Conservation Officer David Lynn Grove was murdered by a convicted felon who was being arrested for deer poaching. The killer was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to execution. In May 2014 Zambian Wildlife Authority ranger Dexter Chilunda was assassinated by poachers in Liuwa Plain National Park. In January 2015, wildlife ranger Abdullahi Mohammed was murdered by poachers in Kenya. In April 2015, wildlife ranger Agoyo Mbikoyo suffered the same fate while protecting animals in Garamba National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo. Between 1998 and 2015, twenty-three wildlife officers were assassinated by poachers in Zakoma National Park, Chad, with 27 wildlife rangers murdered in Africa in 2013/2014. The Thin Green Line Foundation has estimated that about 1,000 wildlife officers have been killed over the past decade. Environmental activists, as well as wildlife conservation officers, are the targets of poachers. According to Global Witness, in the first decade of the 21st Century, about 1.3 people per week were killed while working to protect Mother Nature. That number has nearly doubled; in 2014, at least 116 environmental activists were murdered, or 2.2 per week. Poachers have declared war not only against wildlife, but against the Guardians of Nature. It is time to fight fire with fire.

Elephant poaching is BIG business. The UN Environment Program and INTERPOL have estimated the illegal ivory trade is worth close to $200 million per year, or about 1% of the illegal trade and trafficking in flora and fauna around the globe. In 2012, between 25,000 and 35,000 African elephants were illegally butchered. In 2013, the United States pulverized six tons of ivory that had been confiscated as illegal imports over two decades. The street value was about $10,000,000,000. In January 2014, China followed suit and crushed six tons of ivory trinkets and elephant tusks, a public display repeated on 29 May 2015, when a little over 600 kg of confiscated ivory was destroyed. At the time, China announced that they planned to shut down the illegal ivory trade, but they provided no timeline. February 2014 saw France demolishing three tons of illegally imported ivory and, the same year, Chad, whose elephant population has plummeted from around 400,000 in 1970 to about 450 today, burned their stockpile of ivory. In March and April 2015, Kenya, Ethiopia, Congo, and Dubai burned close to 40 tons of elephant ivory. The population of elephants in Mozambique has plummeted from around 20,000 to 10,000 in five years. Tanzania announced on 2 June 2015 that the population of elephants in the country has nosedived from 109,051 to 43,330 in the last five years. The best scientific estimate has about 100 African elephants per day , on average, illegally slaughtered for their tusks. Despite public ivory pyres and crushing, the slaughter continues. And, African elephants are not the only proboscidian murdered for their teeth. Their cousins, the Asian elephants, are also targeted. Perhaps less than 25,000 Asian elephants are left in the wild. Even if each one sat on two seats in the Rose Bowl Stadium in Pasadena, only about half the stadium would be filled!

In addition to the public immolation of ivory, the world community has adopted a plethora of plans and programs to combat the illegal wildlife trade. In 2014, World Wildlife Fund – The Netherlands planted the seed for the Wildlife Justice Commission, located in The Hague, whose mission is to reduce poaching and wildlife trafficking by confronting the international criminal networks linked to wildlife crimes with more diligent prosecution and legal action. In May 2015, South African Airways instituted a ban on the transport of wildlife trophies and Kenya opened an anti-poaching forensic laboratory designed to use high technology DNA analysis for decoding the location of confiscated ivory. A new initiative, the Wildlife Crime Tech Challenge was just launched that offers a financial reward to someone developing the best scientific method to thwart wildlife trafficking. But elephants are dead by the time science figures out where they were living.

Elephant in Sumatra, Indonesia

A mushrooming of organizations, and vast sums of money, are aiming their expertise at interdiction of the wildlife trade, disruption of organized criminal networks, and identification of source specimens to enhance prosecution. None of these approaches are faulty, but they are hacking at the branches, not the root, of the central problem. As they focus on a scientific pursuit of hobbling the wildlife crime syndicates, wildlife rangers are killed, elephants are murdered, and less attention and funds are devoted to reducing demand or protecting supply. After many years, the United States military and government finally realized that massive firepower and conventional war tactics were no match for guerrilla warfare in Vietnam. Neither Operation Ranch Hand (using Agent Orange to defoliate ‘hiding’ places) nor Operation Rolling Thunder (blanket bombing of targeted areas) brought victory. Poachers are well-organized militias that are engaged in guerrilla warfare, and meeting them on their own turf might yield more dividends than massive expenditures on fancy equipment.

In April 2015, at the 13th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, the attendees issued a declaration that illegal wildlife trading was a "serious crime", noting that "our law enforcement and criminal justice institutions have the expertise and technical capacities…" to thwart the criminal syndicates engaged in the trade. John E. Scanlon, CITES Secretary-General, claimed that such efforts "send a message to those who trade illegally in elephant ivory that the age and origin of their contraband can today be readily identified through the use of modern forensics. Therefore….the return on ‘investment’ will most likely be imprisonment, heavy fines, and seized assets." I’m not really sure that the poachers are trembling from fear, and running away from their lucrative trade, even if they get the message.

Torching and trampling tusks, combined with hi-tech forensics, are methods to close the barn door after the horse is out. The elephants are already dead. And what are the present penalties for poachers and smugglers? In the United Arab Emirates, ivory smuggling can yield a six month prison term, as well as a fine of close to $15,000, while trace amounts of cannabis on a person result in a minimum four year sentence. In the United States, conviction of illegal trafficking in wildlife under the Lacey Act can produce the same penalty as importing less than 50 kg, or 110 pounds, of marijuana, i.e., up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The Lacey Act celebrated its 115th birthday on 25 May 2015. It is one of the most powerful laws aimed at stopping poaching and punishing wildlife traffickers. John F. Lacey was a Union infantry soldier in the Civil War who became a Republican Congressman from Iowa. As a victim of a stagecoach robbery shortly after Yellowstone National Park was created, he was appalled by the lawlessness within the park, including the killing of animals. The federal government took action by recruiting the military to fight poachers, park vandals, and thieves. On August 17, 1886, Captain Moses Harris led 50 men in Troop M, First U. S. Cavalry Division, to Yellowstone National Park under direct orders from the military command. The cavalry was tasked with protecting the landscape and its natural inhabitants. Eight years later, Lacey spearheaded legislation that became the Game Protection Act and was the first federal document that made poaching of wildlife in the National Parks a crime, subject to prison and fines. Perhaps the time has come to bring back the military to engage in battles against poachers, their cronies, and the mobs ruling the roost.

In 2012, Paula Kahumbu, CEO of WildlifeDirect, a Kenya-based NGO, wrote: "the shooting of suspected poachers has been the most effective deterrent against poaching, but…[the]…social backlash" might have hindered conservation efforts. Wildlife poachers today are not poor villagers armed with old muskets; they are well-trained guerrilla fighters, adept at navigating in the bush, and armed with assault rifles and machine guns. Chad has formed the Mamba team, an elite group of rangers armed with sniper rifles, trained in bush warfare, and sometimes patrolling on horseback as a rapid response team to battle poachers. Some conservationists have suggested that poaching will not end if the target is the poachers because they are supported and funded by organized crime. But launching a war against elephanticide is not limited to attacking the men with the guns; targeting corrupt officials and the puppeteers in the syndicate is also in order. The real solution lies in destroying and defeating the mobs, syndicates, and mafias fueling the demand and providing the supply, but they cannot operate without their foot soldiers.

We are in the midst of a wildlife war. The elephants cannot defend themselves. It might be time to emulate the "old fashioned" methods used by the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s that were successful at reducing the illegal trade in wildlife. Increased protection of elephants in parks has been considered to be one reason why the elephant population of Uganda has increased from about 800 in 1980 to around 5,000 today. Some people think that elephants from neighboring DRC have moved to Uganda for safety.

Wars are not won by drones and bombs alone, but by boots-on-the-ground concurrent with the support of the local population. Enforcement and Education provide the foundations for saving elephants. If the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), which integrates the Special Operations Forces of different military branches, such as the U.S. Army Delta Force and the U.S. Navy SEALS, can train elite soldiers in unconventional warfare, guerrilla tactics, counterterrorism, and moonless night raids to find and capture, or kill if necessary, narco-kingpins and Islamic terrorists, then they can certainly train and equip wildlife officers to battle poachers and bring the wildlife mafia to justice. Combined with a powerful education program, we can save elephants from extinction. Modern day poachers can terrorize villagers, as well as ruin the local economy, by eradicating nearby wildlife. We are not talking here about local bushmeat hunters, but about vicious syndicates that are well-armed and well-funded.

Desert elephant in Namibia

In Kenya, the average per capita income, according to the World Bank, is close to $1,200 per year; a poacher can earn the same amount from a pair of tusks. On the black market, ivory tusks are worth about $2,100/kg. Strangely enough, an African elephant tusk has a greater monetary value than a human life. The United States military pays a "Death Gratuity" to the family of soldiers killed in action. The payment is $100,000, which computes to about $1,000 or so per kilogram, or half the value of a tusk! How much is an elephant worth? The answer depends on who is doing the calculations. Although the largest African elephant tusk on record weighs a little over 100 kg, a big bull elephant today might have a pair of 50 kg tusks, or teeth that are worth about $100,000 each on the illegal ivory market. A trophy hunting fee in South Africa for an elephant costs $42,000, with the hunter spending at least an equal amount on his or her safari to kill the animal. In 2003, the Zoological Society of San Diego, along with the Lowry Park Zoo, paid the King of Swaziland $133,000 for eleven elephants that were exported to the United States for display at zoological institutions. The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust has estimated that an African elephant can yield approximately $1.6 million in income from tourist dollars. So, how much is an elephant worth? How much is the Grand Canyon worth? Do tourist dollars reflect the actual value of a priceless landscape that can never be duplicated? How much is Michalangelo’s statue of David worth?

What is the penalty for a wildlife trafficking kingpin? We don’t know because, to date, only one such person has been arrested. This year, Feisel Mohammed Ali, listed by INTERPOL as one of the most wanted men engaged in the illegal wildlife trade, was apprehended in Tanzania and extradited to Kenya to face charges for possession of about two tons of elephant tusks, with an estimated value of $4.5 million. As he awaits trial in jail, the impounded vehicle that he used to transport the goods has mysteriously vanished.

Plenty has been written, and debated, about whether hunting elephants is a proper conservation strategy or a death knell to the future of elephants, so the debate will not be repeated here. But we have the worst of both worlds. According to current regulations in the United States, a piano made with ivory keys that was manufactured in 1985 using tusks from an elephant killed in 1975, is legal to sell. On the other hand, a piano made the same year, but using tusks from an elephant killed in 1980, is illegal to sell. The United States is the second largest importer of illegal wildlife products, despite all efforts to halt the trade. China, the world’s worst offender, decided in February 2015 to ban, but only for one year, the import of carved African ivory statues and decorations. How much of the illegally imported ivory do you think enters the country as finely carved tchotchkes?

Opponents of the legal ivory trade suggest that the best way to save elephants is to adopt a complete ban on the ivory trade, destroy stockpiles of ivory, increase monitoring and enforcement efforts, enhance educational programs, and augment anti-poaching patrols along with instituting more severe punishments of perpetrators. Proponents of limited and controlled ivory trading suggest that the best way to save elephants is to adopt a controlled conservation management plan permitting the killing of elephants, accompanied by increased monitoring and enforcement efforts, enhance educational programs, augment anti-poaching patrols, and adopt more severe punishments for perpetrators. As is obvious, both sides share a common denominator involving education, enforcement, monitoring, and patrolling. Both sides garner "fact-based evidence" to support their position, and both sides contend that their opposition is relying upon emotional arguments. Both sides imply that corruption is an issue with the opposition program, failing to realize that corruption is an ugly and unfortunate shadow tailing either approach. Alongside these debates are a growing demand for greater fines and harsher punishments for poachers, dealers, smugglers, and their lords. Much of the illegal poaching of elephant ivory, and rhinoceros horns, is carried out by organized crime networks that are also linked to terrorists and militias aiming to overthrow established governments. To combat the wildlife crime syndicates, we need to use every arsenal possible in our kit. One item in our wildlife protection kit is science and technology; but a neglected item is support for wildlife soldiers trained to stop the slaughter.

Namibian elephants

In 2016, Cape Town will host the CITES CoP 17 [Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, Conference of Parties, 17th meeting], where poaching should be on the agenda. Some of the delegates may never have seen an elephant in the wild and might never see one unless drastic action is taken. No doubt modern forensics and advanced technology provide useful weapons in fighting the war, but more warriors are also needed. Many people have become hypnotized by high tech. How about devoting resources to elite wildlife rangers dedicated to stopping poachers in addition to laboratory technicians dedicated to analyzing tusk DNA? How about going on the offensive and launching attacks against the field scum and their wealthy controllers? What if we employ a four pronged pincer attack incorporating Evidence, from modern science, Economics, to support the livelihood of local people so that they do not become or shelter the wildlife villains, Enforcement, using specially trained units that will ‘shoot-to-kill’ if necessary, and Education, at both the supply and demand stages? We ought to declare a War on Poachers that aims to eliminate this scourge from the Planet. Declarations of a ‘serious crime’ only go so far; how about more boots-on-the-ground?

Poachers are viewed as "wildlife criminals", subject to arrest and prosecution. What if we changed our mindset and considered them "wildlife terrorists", engaged in guerrilla warfare against both rangers and wild animals? The rules of engagement change. Instead of treating a disease after it strikes, what if our efforts are aimed at preventing the disease from occurring?

We are at war. It is a war against wildlife; it is a war against the defenders of wildlife; it is a war against our children and grandchildren; it is a war against our priceless heritage; it is a war that we can win if we devote resources to winning the war. But we need to fund warriors to fight the war. We need to take the offensive and counteract by fighting fire with fire. We need more money for more foot soldiers that are willing to risk their own lives to protect our fellow inhabitants of the planet.

In African Game Trails (1910), Theodore Roosevelt wrote that "Ivory hunters and ivory traders have penetrated Africa to the haunts of the elephant since centuries before our era, and the elephant’s boundaries have been slowly receding throughout historic times…Fortunately, the civilized powers which now divide dominion over Africa have waked up in time, and there is at present no danger of the extermination of the lord of all four-footed creatures." Unfortunately, those "civilized powers", as well as others in the world community, have not yet woken up to the fact that elephants are in danger of going extinct in our lifetime. He wrote those words one hundred eleven years after Mungo Park pondered the fate of the African elephant due to the ivory trade. In the same book, Roosevelt lamented that: "It would be a veritable and most tragic calamity if the lordly elephant, the giant among existing four-footed creatures, should be permitted to vanish from the face of the earth." The question is whether 111 years after those words were written, these lordly creatures will still be a sight to behold in Africa. We only have six more years to find out.

Fred B. Bercovitch, Ph.D., is a Professor at Kyoto University specializing in wildlife biology and conservation science who has authored over 120 academic papers. This article is extracted and expanded from his forthcoming book connecting conservation with evolution.

]]>http://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/the-ivory-trade-and-the-war-on-wildlife-rangers-commentary/feed/0The poachers’ bill: at least 65,000 elephants in Tanzaniahttp://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/the-poachers-bill-at-least-65000-elephants-in-tanzania/
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/the-poachers-bill-at-least-65000-elephants-in-tanzania/#commentsTue, 02 Jun 2015 18:38:00 +0000http://news.mongabaydev.co.uk/2015/06/the-poachers-bill-at-least-65000-elephants-in-tanzania/An elephant in Ruaha National Park. In just a few years poachers have wiped out most of the elephants in the Ruaha-Rungwa landscape, cutting the population down by 76 percent. Photo by: Cristian Samper/WCS.

During the last couple years there have been persistent rumors and trickles of information that elephant poaching was running rampant in Tanzania as the government stood by and did little. Yesterday, the government finally confirmed the rumors: Tanzania's savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana) population has dropped from 109,051 animals in 2009 to just 43,330 last year—a plunge of 60% in just five years. While some populations in the north actually rose, poachers decimated elephant populations in the nation's vast southern wildernesses.

"It is incredible that poaching on such an industrial scale has not been identified and addressed before now," said Steven Broad, the Executive Director of the anti-wildlife trade group, TRAFFIC’s.

In 2013, TRAFFIC warned that the smuggling route used by ivory traders had moved to Tanzania's port cities, a sign that poachers were also targeting the country with impunity.

In all Tanzania's elephant population fell by 65,721 animals in five years, but that may not even reflect the full tally of the poachers' bill. If one assumes, an annual population growth rate of 5%, this could mean more than 85,000 elephants were slaughtered for their ivory in Tanzania since 2009 or 17,000 pachyderms every single year. Such a scale may be one of the worst in Africa and even eclipses the announcement last month that Mozambique lost 10,000 elephants, representing nearly half of its population.

Poachers hit elephant populations hardest in remote protected areas in the south, such as Ruaha National Park, Rungwa Game Reserve, the Malagarasi-Muyovozi Wetlands, and the Selous Game Reserve, where conservationists have for years reported that elephants were dying en-masse.

In the Ruaha-Rungwa landscape, the government found that the elephant population had fallen from 34,600 in 2009 to 8,272 last year, a catastrophic drop of 76 percent.

Tanzania's Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, Lazaro Nyalandu, called Rungwa Game Reserve a "slaughterhouse," according to ITV .

He added that "Ruaha is one thing but Rungwa I believe is an epicentre of where all the trouble has come from."

The Minister also announced a re-survey of the Ruaha-Rungwa landscape given the numbers were so poor.

Still, there were a couple bright spots in the government's data. For example, elephant populations in the Serengeti double, rising from 3,068 animals to 6,087. But overall, the picture of overall carnage is hard to avoid.

In response to the new data, Lazaro Nyalandu, said the country would add another 500 wildlife rangers to its rosters this year (500 were added last year as well) and double the number of rangers in the hard hit Ruaha-Rungwa landscape. The country is also working with neighboring Zambia to crack down on the illegal trade.

An elephant in Selous. This UNESCO World Heritage Site has been infiltrated by poachers who have wiped out many of its elephants. Photo by: USFWS.

"While the measures announced this week by the Tanzania government are welcome, there is a real risk that it could be a case of too little too late for some elephant populations," said Broad with Traffic. "Tanzania has been hemorrhaging ivory with Ruaha-Rungwa the apparent epi-center and nobody seems to have raised the alarm; it is clearly essential that the government establish exactly how this has been allowed to take place, while taking urgent and incisive action to bring the situation under control."

The new survey from Tanzania will help conservationists figure out just how many savannah elephants are left on the continent after a poaching crisis that began around 2007. Currently, an initiative called the Great Elephant Census is counting elephant populations across sub-Saharan Africa. Although the census has uncovered some bleak numbers—such as Mozambique's loss of 10,000 elephants—it has also recorded some hope. For example, Uganda's savanna elephant population is now around 5,000 animals, a significant rise from a 1980s low of 700-800. Moreover, Botswana remains the global stronghold for savanna elephants with a population of nearly 130,000 and no evidence of poaching in recent years.

But even as savanna elephants have been hard hit, the continent's forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis)—genetically distinct from its savanna cousins—are even worse off. A study in 2013 estimated that poachers killed 62% of the world's forest elephants between 2002-2011, and an update last year pushed that to 65% between 2002-2013.

Aerial view of elephant herd in Ruaha National Park. Elephants have been decimated in this protected area. Photo by: Cristian Samper/WCS.

The Chinese government announced today that it will "eventually" shut down its legal domestic ivory market. The move, which surprised conservationists, could provide a major boost in efforts to stop the mass killing of elephants for their ivory.

The announcement came during a public event where 662 kilograms of contraband ivory was destroyed. Zhao Shucong, head of China’s State Forestry Administration, told attendees that China "will strictly control ivory processing and trade until the commercial processing and sale of ivory and its products are eventually halted."

The remarks are the first time that China has committed to close down its domestic ivory market, which conservationists say provides cover for the illegal ivory trade, for which China is also the biggest player.

Accordingly, the announcement was immediately welcomed by conservation groups.

“This decision will have a profound impact on wild elephant conservation and ivory trafficking,” said Zhou Fei, Head of TRAFFIC’s China Office, in a statement.

“It would be hard to overstate how significant this announcement may turn out to be. Its potential impact could be critical to the fate of Africa’s declining elephant populations, which have been targeted by ruthless criminal syndicates across sub-Saharan Africa to supply the international demand for ivory. In the past several years, more than 100,000 elephants have been slaughtered in Africa; that is roughly 96 elephants a day, or one every 15 minutes," added Cristián Samper, President and CEO of WCS, which has a substantial anti-poaching campaign.

“China is by far the largest market for illegal ivory in the world. Most of the ivory leaving Africa is destined for China and that illegal trade is the primary driver for the poaching crisis that has spread across Africa during the last decade. China’s announcement today has the potential to be a game changer."

Elephant in Namibia

Andrew Wetzler, Land and Wildlife director and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), agreed.

“Shutting down commercial ivory markets worldwide is the single biggest step that governments can take to end the elephant poaching crisis. As the world’s largest ivory market, the importance of China’s announcement to phase out all commercial ivory sales cannot be underestimated," Wetzler said in a statement. "Now it’s our job to closely monitor the details of China’s plans, including its timeline and any intermediate steps the Chinese government will be taking.”

Those next steps should include independent audits of ivory stockpiles and compliance with previous international commitments, according TRAFFIC's Zhou Fei.

"Ivory destructions should not be an end in themselves—any such events should be followed by actions to ensure countries continue to comply with their international commitments under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to shut down the illegal ivory trade,” Zhou said.

Stepped up law enforcement is also key, added WCS's Samper.

"China’s statement will precipitate similar commitments from other regional consumer countries; for this reason alone, this move should be recognized for its significance," he said. "China must now follow through on the new global leadership course it appears to be seizing through its domestic ivory policy. In addition, the destruction of confiscated ivory stocks, the Chinese government now needs to announce effective trafficking deterrents, such as a commitment to successful prosecution of criminals, significant fines, long jail sentences, and asset seizures."

“Earlier this year, the China State Forestry Administration released a revised list of licensed ivory carving factories, legal ivory retailers, and sellers. Ten percent of factories or retailers previously listed have been removed. With today’s announcement, we look forward to China clarifying a timetable for closing the remaining factories."

Elephant in Sumatra, Indonesia

China's announcement comes as elephant poaching reaches crisis levels. Estimates of the number of elephants killed on an annual basis in Africa for their tusks range from 22,000 to 35,000. A report published this week revealed that Mozambique lost half of its elephants in just 5 years. African forest elephant populations have experienced even steeper declines. The rise of the trade has been linked to other criminal activity including weapons smuggling, rhino poaching, and even terrorism, according to some analysts.

China is also the biggest market for a number of other wildlife products, including tiger parts, pangolin scales, bear gallbladders, and shark fins, among others. However a recent crackdown on corruption has raised hopes that the government may take a more proactive approach to dealing with the wildlife trade.

In the 1980s, Uganda's elephants looked like they were on their way to extinction. The country had only about 700-800 elephants left, all in a single park; poachers had exterminated the rest. But a new survey as a part of the Great Elephant Census has confirmed that Uganda is today a bright spot in the current ivory poaching crisis. The country has more than 5,000 elephants and growing.

"It is very encouraging to see elephant numbers increasing in Uganda as a result of effective protection in several parks, despite the rampant poaching and ivory trafficking across much of Africa," said Paul Elkan, a Senior Conservationist with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which conducted Uganda's survey along with the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA).

The surveys, done by plane, resulted in an estimation of 2,913 elephants in Queen Elizabeth National Park, 1,330 elephants in Murchison Falls National Park, and 656 elephants between the Kidepo Valley National Park and the Karenga Community Wildlife Management Area.

Elephant in Uganda. Photo by: Andrew Plumptre/WCS.

The Great Elephant Census, funded by in part by Paul G. Allen the co-founder of Microsoft, is a 18-nation effort to put hard numbers to Africa's savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana) population. The census is already finding starkly different stories of animal abundance. For example, while elephants are thriving in Queen Elizabeth just over the border in the Democratic Republic of the Congo they have been hammered.

"The results of an aerial survey of the adjacent Virunga Park with ICCN, conducted at the same time, estimated fewer than 50 elephants left in that park because of the high levels of poaching there and they have migrated to Uganda for security," said Andrew Plumptre, the director for the Albertine Rift Program of WCS, who added that "some 3,000 elephants were estimated to occur in Virunga in the early 1960s."

Yesterday, the WCS and the government of Mozambique announced the East African country had lost 10,000 elephants in just five years. In all, conservationists estimate that poachers have killed between 20,000 and 30,000 elephants every year since the crisis kicked off in 2007 and 2008.

Still, strongholds for savannah elephants remain. The Great Elephant Census estimated 129,000 elephants for northern Botswana, the largest population on the continent. Even more importantly, the survey found zero signs of poaching in this region.